Wednesday, December 26, 2018

Scenes We’d Like To See Dept.

     Recently a nominee to the federal bench, Brian C. Buescher, was interrogated by a couple of Democrat senators thus:

     In written questions sent to Buescher by committee members Dec. 5, Sen. Hirono stated that “the Knights of Columbus has taken a number of extreme positions. For example, it was reportedly one of the top contributors to California’s Proposition 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage.”

     Hirono then asked Buescher if he would quit the group if he was confirmed “to avoid any appearance of bias.”

     “The Knights of Columbus does not have the authority to take personal political positions on behalf of all of its approximately two million members,” Buescher responded.

     “If confirmed, I will apply all provisions of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges regarding recusal and disqualification,” he said.

     And also thus:

     In her questions to the nominee, Sen. [Kamala] Harris described the Knights as “an all-male society” and asked if Buescher was aware that the Knights of Columbus “opposed a woman’s right to choose” and were against “marriage equality” when he joined.

     Responding to the senator’s questions, Buescher confirmed that he has been a member of the Knights since he was 18 years old, noting that his membership “has involved participation in charitable and community events in local Catholic parishes.”

     “I do not recall if I was aware whether the Knights of Columbus had taken a position on the abortion issue when I joined at the age of 18,” he wrote in response.

     Harris raised a statement from Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson, who said that abortion constituted “the killing of the innocent on a massive scale” and asked Buescher if he agreed with Anderson.

     Buescher said he was not responsible for drafting statements or policies made by the Knights and that, as a federal judge, he would consider himself bound by judicial precedent regarding abortion.

     Brian Buescher, who might be a superb jurist, has nevertheless disappointed me greatly. He’s a Knight of Columbus and a Catholic – surprise, surprise – which means the above waffling responses ought never to have occurred. Here’s how those questions should have been met:

     Hirono: In 2014, you ran for the Republican nomination for Nebraska Attorney General. In the course of that campaign, you made a number of statements demonstrating your opposition to women’s reproductive rights. In an interview with the Nebraska Family Alliance, for instance, you said that “unfortunately, under Roe v. Wade, it is not possible to ban abortion right now.” During the same interview, you called yourself “an avidly pro-life person” and said that you would “not compromise on that issue,” noting it was “simply [your] moral fabric.”...Do you believe that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided?

     Buescher: No.

     Harris: Since 1993, you have been a member of the Knights of Columbus, an all-male society comprised primarily of Catholic men. In 2016, Carl Anderson, leader of the Knights of Columbus, described abortion as “a legal regime that has resulted in more than 40 million deaths.” Mr. Anderson went on to say that “abortion is the killing of the innocent on a massive scale.” Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?

     Buescher: Yes.

     Harris: Do you agree with Mr. Anderson that abortion is “the killing of the innocent on a massive scale”?

     Buescher: Yes.

     Period. Full stop. END OF SENTENCE. Other answers are unworthy of a Catholic, to say nothing of a Knight of Columbus in good standing.

     The questions, as posed – and I copied them verbatim from the written-questions document – are about Buescher’s personal convictions, not about what he would do on the federal bench. Apparently he’s too avid for the judgeship for which he’s been nominated to be fearlessly candid about his Catholicism.

Abortion and the heterosexual nature of marriage are two of the five “non-negotiables” decreed by the Vatican:
     1. Abortion

     The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide. The unborn child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child's, who should not suffer death for others' sins....

     5. Homosexual "Marriage"

     True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement. "When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time ina legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral"

     Waffling as Buescher did on two “non-negotiable” positions of the Church is tantamount to saying “Well, yeah, I’m a Catholic, but I don’t put a lot of stock in the crazy parts.”

     We have a president who’s fearless and candid about his convictions. Is it too much to ask for judicial nominees who, however bound by Supreme Court precedents they may be, are fearless and candid about theirs? Among other things, imagine the looks on the faces of such Democrat terror-mongers when they get exactly the responses they thought they wanted. Imagine them having to defend their religious biases in light of the Constitution’s “no religious test” clause, or their enthusiasm about the slaughter of unborn children to a nation that’s still 74% Christian. I, at least, would be delighted.

     Happy Boxing Day.

8 comments:

sykes.1 said...

All judges adhere to the principle of Stare Decisis, which means that any and all precedents are accepted. They do this as a matter of profession expediency recognizing that if precedents are routinely overturned there will be legal chaos. No one could ever know the outcome of a case.

Roman Catholics are entitled to their beliefs, but if they insist that all Catholic judges and politicians attempt to enforce Catholic teachings, then Catholics will be excluded from serving in Congress or on the Courts.

Francis W. Porretto said...

Sykes, you completely missed the point. In the questions I cited, Buescher was asked about his personal convictions, not how he would rule as a jurist. He should have answered those questions candidly, as befits a man who's sincere about his faith.

John C. said...

Does that mean Mohammadans can also be "excluded from serving in Congress or on the courts"? Exactly how would you exclude Catholics from Congress since Congress is elected? How about Evangelicals and Conservative Jews. All of these groups have religious objections to baby murder and queers, should they all be "excluded"? I think your anti-Catholicism is showing.

milton f said...

I was reminded of a gospel reading - Let your yes be yes and your no be no. Anything more is from the evil one.

I look forward to the day when men once again behave as the Creator has directed us. ESPECIALLY brother knights.

PEACE.



Dystopic said...

It used to be understood that the personal was not explicitly political, nor was the political explicitly personal. It CAN be, at times, but it doesn't have to be.

Thus there is no conflict in saying "I believe abortion is wrong" while simultaneously saying "I will rule according to the law - even when in opposition to my personal beliefs."

Leftists manufacture controversy by making the personal political, and vice versa.

John C. said...

Leftists manufacture controversy by making EVERYTHING political.

Linda Fox said...

Wrong response. The correct response is:

If you have a question about my rulings, I will, of course, answer them. Just as I would uphold a Muslim's right to refuse to answer questions relating to the Koran in order to get a job, I stand firm against intrusive personal questions unrelated to work.

Do you have an other questions, related to how I ruled in the past?

John C. said...

Actually they weren't asking questions about the Bible which would be akin to asking about the Koran. They were asking about his association with a religious based group, the K of C so it would be like asking a Mohammadan if he is a member of the Moslem Brotherhood or ISIS and I don't see them wanting to open that door.